1. Farid Sarkar and Ali Sarkar and others were charged with the offence of rioting by entering forcibly into a zamindar's cutcherry. Against the first two there was a separate complaint by one Ameruddin, a peon in that cutcherry, of having caused hurt to him in the course of the rioting, which formed the subject-matter of the first-mentioned case. The Magistrate convicted the accused persons in both cases. He recorded one judgment, in which he says that he tried the riot-case regularly, and the hurt-case summarily. The punishment awarded in the latter case was a fine of Rs. 50 each. Both cases went before the Sessions Judge,--the former by way of appeal, and the latter by way of motion. The Judge, holding that, under Section 454 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there should have been one trial, treated the whole matter together, and reversed the conviction. Although we are inclined to agree with the Judge that, under Section 454, there could have been one trial, yet it does not seem to us that it was illegal to try the two cases separately; therefore, the Judge had no jurisdiction to reverse the conviction in the hurt case. His order, so far as it relates to this case, must be cancelled.
2. We have perused the record of the summary trial made under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and as we find it is not open to any objection, we direct that the order of the Magistrate, adjudging Farid Sarkar and Ali Sarkar to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each, be restored.